Philosophy 

OF  THE 

SINGLE  TAX  ON  LAND  VALUES 

EXAMINED. 

The  Single  Tax  Theory  is  a 
Dangerous  Fallacy. 

The  advocates  of  the  Single  Tax  Theory  are  again 
before  the  Legislature.  Their  doctrine  is  a  delusion  and 
a  snare;  and  any  measure  that  is  advocated  by  them 
should  be  carefully  scrutinized,  lest  it  turn  out  to  be 
the  entering  wedge  for  more  violent  and  dangerous 
changes.  If  you  wish  to  know  just  what  the  advocates 
of  vSingle  Tax  are  working  ultimately  to  achieve,  and 
what  their  theory  really  means,  read  the  inclosed  address 
by  Dr.  Shutter.  Extra  copies  may  be  obtained  free  of 
charge  by  applying  to  Rome  G.  Brown,  1004  Guaranty 
Loan  Building,  Minneapolis,  Minnesota. 


Avery  Architectural  and  Fine  Arts  Library 
Gift  of  Seymour  B.  Durst  Old  York  Library 


THE  PHILOSOPHY  OF  THE  SINGLE  TAX  EXAMINED, 


By  Marion  D.  Shutter. 


I.  — What  is  the  Single  Tax  ?    What  Does  It  Pkopose  ? 

(1)  The  Single  Tax  is  not  a  tax  upon  land  itself,  but  upon 
land  values. 

The  only  land,  therefore,  which  enters  into  the  question  is 
valuable  land, — that  which  brings,  or  which  might  bring,  its 
owner  a  return  in  the  shape  of  rent ;  land  whose  holding  thus 
gives  him  some  real  or  imaginary  advantage  over  the  rest  of 
the  community ;  land  which  possibly  lies  idle,  waiting  for 
some  profitable  outcome  in  the  future. 

(2)  The  Single  Tax  is  not  a  tax  upon  the  improvements  on 
land.  It  is  a  tax  upon  the  value  of  land,  irrespective  of  these 
improvem  en  is . 

The  buildings,  fences,  drains,  wells, — orchards,  too,  I  sup- 
pose,— must  not  be  counted  in  when  we  try  to  determine  the 
value  of  a  farm  ;  the  business  block,  factory,  or  dwelling,  must 
not  enter  when  we  try  to  ascertain  the  value  of  a  lot  in  the  city.  ' 
These  are  the  productions  of  human  labor,  and  the  Single  Tax 
does  not  propose  to  levy  for  the  support  of  government  upon 
anything  that  is  produced  by  human  labor. 

(3)  The  Single  Tax  is  "single  "  in  that  the  burden  of  con- 
tributing to  the  expenses  of  government  is  to  be  lifted  from 
everything  else,  and  placed  upon  land  values  alone. 

All  public  revenues,  whether  municipal,  county,  state,  or 
national,  are  to  be  raised  exclusively  by  this  method.  In- 
comes, personal  property,  franchises,  stocks,  are  to  be  exempted. 
No  money  is  to  be  raised  by  licenses  or  fines.    The  inter- 


nal  revenue  tax  upon  whisky  and  tobacco  is  to  be  abolished. 
Custom  houses  are  to  be  swept  away  and  foreign  importa- 
tions of  all  kinds  admitted  free  of  duty.  That  is  to  say  that 
whatever  proportion  of  the  public  funds  is  now  raised  by  levy- 
ing upon  a  multitude  of  objects  besides  land  values  is  to  be 
added  to  the  proportion  already  borne  by  such  values,  making 
them  the  sole  source  of  revenue  for  all  purposes  whatsoever. 
Land  that  has  value  attaching  to  it,  therefore,  becomes  the  Atlas 
that,  single-handed,  bears  up  the  weight  of  the  world  ! 

It  is  easily  apparent  from  this  that  one  of  the  objects  aimed 
at  by  the  advocates  of  the  Single  Tax  is  absolute  Free  Trade. 

This  they  cheerfully  admit.  They  are  now  engaged  in  circu- 
lating by  thousands  Mr.  George's  book  against  protection,  in  or- 
der to  prepare  the  public  mind  for  the  defeat  of  protection  in 
1892.  I  am  not  here  to  argue  the  question  of  protection  or 
free  trade  to-night ;  but  if  there  are  any  persons  here  from  the 
outside,  I  want  them  to  clearly  understand  what  is  meant 
by  abolishing  all  other  forms  of  taxation,  and  collecting  the 
expenses  of  government  entirely  from  the  rental  value  of 
land.  There  may  be  those  inclined  to  think  favorably  of  giv- 
ing the  Single  Tax  a  trial  who  have  not  duly  considered  its 
avowed  and  inevitable  outcome, — who  are  not  quite  ready  to 
admit  that  we  ou^ht  to  tear  down  our  custom-houses  and  throw 
our  ports  wide  open. 

I  have  described  the  Single  Tax  as  fairly  as  it  could  be  done 
in  brief  space ;  and  what  I  propose  to  do  to-night  is  to 

EXAMINE  ITS  FOUNDATIONS. 

I  shall  try  to  discover  and  analyze  its  underlying  principles. 
It  is  true  the  single  tax  may  be  separately  considered  as  a 
scheme  of  taxation  ;  or  it  might  be  discussed  as  a  means  of 
abolishing  poverty.  I  shall  confine  myself  to  the  subject  I  have 
announced.  If  the  basilar  principle  is  not  substantial,  the  struc- 
ture will  be  of  no  avail.  A  building  is  never  stronger  than  the 
stones  upon  which  it  rests — or,  indeed,  the  weakest  of  these.  If 
there  be  a  flaw  in  one  of  the  underlying  rocks,  the  walls  are 
doomed. 


5 


II. — Fundamental  Principle  of  the  Single  Tax. 

When  this  change  in  our  system  of  taxation  is  proposed,  the 
question  very  naturally  arises,  ' '  Why  should  the  rental  value  of 
land  be  singled  out  and  made  to  bear  the  entire  weight  of  taxa- 
tion ?" 

The  answer  is  that  land  belongs  to  the  entire  community,  and 
it  is  only  by  appropriating  the  proceeds  of  land  in  taxation  that 
the  community  receives  any  benefit  from  that  which  is  its  own, 
but  which  has  been  alienated  by  private  individuals. 

The  philosophical  basis  of  the  Single  Tax,  therefore,  is  the 

denial  of  the  right  of  private  property  in  land. 
Let  us  be  sure  that  we  are  not  mistaken. 

"We  have  traced,"  says  Mr.  George,  "the  unequal  distri- 
bution of  wealth,  which  is  the  curse  and  menace  of  modern  civ- 
ilization, to  the  institution  of  private  property  in  land. 
There  is  but  one  way  to  remove  an  evil,  and  that  is  to  remove 
its  cause.  *  *  To  extirpate  poverty,  to  make  wages  what  jus- 
tice commands  they  should  be,  the  full  earnings  of  the  laborer, 
we  must  therefore  substitute  for  the  individual  ownership  of 
land,  a  common  ownership.  *  "  We  must  make  land  com- 
mon property." — Progress  and  Poverty,  p.  295. 

(1)  This  is  what  he  proposes.  The  Single  Tax,  therefore,  is 
not  only  a  step  towards  absolute  free  trade,  but  it  is  just  as 
surely  a  step  towards  the  abolition  of  individual  titles  in  land. 

This,  of  course,  is  no  news  to  the  league.  But  I  want  those  who 
are  not  upon  the  inside,  who  are  merely  looking  upon  the 
scheme  as  a  simple  change  in  methods  of  taxation,  to  under- 
stand whither  it  all  tends.  I  do  not  want  them  to  take  a  leap 
in  the  dark.  If  they  have  titles  to  lands,  and  are  ready  to  va- 
cate them  when  the  time  comes,  very  good  !  If  they  are  ready 
to  admit  what  Mr.  George  charges,  that  the  system  under  which 
they  hold  their  deeds,  is  responsible  for  all  the  social  ills  of 
this  country,  and  that  the  only  way  to  cure  those  ills  is  to  allow 
the  land  to  revert  to  the  community,  then  they  are  perfectly 
consistent  in  favoring  the  Single  Tax.  I  have  nothing  to  say  to 
them.  I  simply  desire  to  warn  those  who  do  not  know,  to  what 
precipice  they  are  being  lured. 


6 


" Our  fundamental  mistake. "  says  Mr.  George,  "is  treating 
land  as  private  property.  On  this  false  basis  modern  civiliza- 
tion everywhere  rests." — Social  Problems ,  pp.  209. 

(2)  How  is  the  change  from  the  false  basis  to  what  Mr. 
George  considers  the  true  to  be  accomplished? 

John  Stuart  Mill  would  have  advised  the  State  to  buy  out 
the  owners.  Mr.  George  thinks  such  compensation  would  be 
nonsense.  The  State  is  already  rightful  owner  of  the  soil. 
Those  who  now  hold  it  are  thieves  and  robbers.  They  have 
grasped  for  themselves  what  belongs  to  all.  They  must  in  some 
way  be  made  to  disgorge.  The  Single  Tax  will  be  the  means  of 
"confiscation." 

That  I  may  not  seem  to  do  Mr.  George  injustice,  in  stating 
his  views  of  land-owners,  let  him  speak  for  himself. 

In  his  " Protection  or  Free  Trade,"  page  284,  the  robbers 
assailing  and  plundering  labor  are  described  as  follows : 

"In  itself  the  abolition  of  protection  is  like  the  driving  off  of 
a  robber.  But  it  will  not  help  a  man  to  drive  off  one  robber, 
if  another  still  stronger  and  more  rapacious  be  left  to  plunder 
him.  Labor  may  be  likened  to  a  man  who,  as  he  carries  home 
his  earnings,  is  waylaid  by  a  series  of  robbers.  One  demands 
this  much,  and  another  that  much,  but  last  of  all  stands  one 
who  demands  all  that  is  left,  save  just  enough  to  enable  the 
victim  to  maintain  his  life  and  come  forth  next  day  to  work. 
So  long  as  this  last  robber  remains,  what  will  it  benefit  such  a 
man  to  drive  off  any  or  all  of  the  other  robbers  \ 

"  Such  is  the  situation  of  labor  to-day  throughout  the  civil- 
ized world.  And  the  robber  that  takes  all  that  is  left  is  pri- 
vate property  in  land." 

In  his  reply  to  the  Duke  of  Arg}dl,  page  67,  he  says: 

' '  They  consume  most,  waste  most,  carry  off  most,  while  the}T 
produce  least.  As  landlords,  in  fact,  they  produce  nothing. 
They  merely  consume  and  destroy.  Economically  considered, 
they  have  the  same  effect  upon  production  as  bands  of  robbers 
or  pirate  fleets.  To  national  wealth  they  are  as  weavils  in  the 
grain,  as  rats  in  the  store-house,  as  ferrets  in  the  poultry  yard. ' ' 

Once  more  : 

"  The  wide-spreading  social  evils- which  everywhere  oppress 
men  amid  an  advancing  civilization,  spring  from  a  great  primary 


7 


wrong — the  appropriation,  as  the  exclusive  property  of  some 
men,  of  the  land  on  which  and  from  which  all  must  live.  From 
this  fundamental  injustice  flow  all  the  injustices  which  distort 
and  endanger  modern  development,  which  condemn  the  pro- 
ducer of  wealth  to  poverty  and  pamper  the  non-producer  in 
luxury,  which  rear  the  tenement  house  with  the  palace,  plant 
the  brothel  behind  the  church,  and  compel  us  to  build  prisons 
as  we  open  new  schools." — Progress  and  Poverty.,  page  305. 

These  extracts  show  us  sufficiently  how  Mr.  George  regards 
the  system  and  those  who  hold  land  under  it.  While  he  does 
not,  as  he  explains  in  another  place,  mean  to  impugn  the  pri- 
vate character  of  any  one,  yet  as  a  matter  of  fact,  every  land- 
owner is  a  robber. 

This  charge,  if  true  at  all,  must  apply  not  only  to  those  who 
own  large  tracts,  but  to  all.  It  is  the  same  system  under  which 
the  holder  of  his  house-lot  and  the  lord  of  millions  of  acres  have 
obtained  their  possessions.  You  need  not,  therefore,  be  guilty 
of  owning  a  ranche  or  a  bonanza  farm  ;  but  if  you  are  a  work- 
ingman  who  own  the  lot  upon  which  }Tour  house  stands,  you  are 
helping  to  condemn  4 4  the  producer  of  wealth  to  poverty,  and 
pamper  the  non-producer  in  luxury."  If  you  have  invested 
your  surplus  earnings  in  a  town  lot  instead  of  putting  them  into 
a  savings  bank,  4  i  you  are  helping  to  rear  the  tenement-house 
with  the  palace,  and  plant  the  brothel  behind  the  church."  The 
settler  who  has  accepted  a  homestead  from  the  government  is 
4 '  compelling  us  to  build  prisons  as  we  open  new  schools. " 
4 '  To  such  base  uses,  may  we  return,  Horatio  !  " 

Every  one  who  holds  a  title  to  land  is  a  robber  ! 

That  land  belongs  to  the  community.  True,  he  may  have 
bought  and  paid  for  it,  and  may  hold  his  title  from  the  State  ; 
but  Mr.  George  tells  us  that  4  4  there  is  on  earth  no  power  that 
can  rightfully  make  a  grant  of  exclusive  ownership  in  land. " 

(3)  It  is  true  that  Mr.  George  does  not  himself  advocate 
violence  in  the  resumption  of  society's  stolen  claims,  but  his 
writings  contain  passages  that  are  calculated  to  precipitate  the 
very  violence  he  deprecates. 

He  certainly  holds  that  it  would  be  right  for  the  people  to 


8 


vacate  all  titles  to  land,  even  by  revolution.  If  he  does  not, 
what  is  the  meaning  of  these  passages  I 

"Why  should  they  who  suffer  from  this  injustice  hesitate  for 
one  moment  to  sweep  it  away  \  Who  are  the  land  holders  that 
the}'  should  thus  be  permitted  to  reap  where  they  have  not 
sown  !'*'.*  And  when  a  title  rests  hut  on  force,  no  com- 
plaint can  he  made  when  force  annuls  it.  Whenever  the  peo- 
ple, having  the  power,  choose  to  annul  those  titles,  no  objection 
can  be  made  in  the  name  of  justice." — Progress  and  Poverty, 
pp.  306,  7. 

"It  is  not  merely  a  robbery  in  the  past ;  it  is  a  robbery  in 
the  present — a  robbery  that  deprives  of  their  birthright  the  in- 
fants that  are  now  coming  into  the  world  !  Why  should  we 
hesitate  about  making  short  work  of  such  a  system?  Because 
I  was  robbed  yesterday,  and  the  day  before,  and  the  day  before 
that,  is  it  any  reason  that  I  should  suffer  myself  to  be  robbed 
to-day  and  to-morrow  ?  Any  reason  that  I  should  conclude  that 
the  robber  has  acquired  a  vested  right  to  rob  me?  " — Tb.  32  S. 

I  ask  again,  what  does  he  mean,  if  he  does  not  mean  that  it 
would  be  perfectly  right  for  the  community  to  dispossess  the 
owners  of  land  even  by  violence  ?  That  is  about  all  the  author- 
ity that  many  in  the  community  would  want,  to  justify  them  in 
rising  up  against  those  whom  they  have  been  taught  to  consider 
the  pirates  and  robbers  of  society — the  owners  of  land.  Mr. 
George  is  not  an  anarchist,  but  the  los^c  of  Mr.  George  leads 
to  the  conclusion  of  the  anarchist.  The  Chicago  hay-market  is 
the  last  link  in  the  chain. 

(4)  But  Mr.  George,  while  holding  that  it  would  be  right  to 
"  confiscate  " — I  use  his  own  word — the  land  of  the  individual, 
and  that  the  individual  thus  denuded  of  his  estate,  would  have 
no  ground  to  complain,  yet  does  not  propose  to  confiscate  land. 
He  says  it  is  needless.  There  is  a  more  excellent  way.  He 
will  take  by  subtlety  what  he  would  shrink  from  taking  by  force. 

"*I  do  not  propose  either  to  purchase  or  to  confiscate  private 
property  in  land.  The  first  would  be  unjust ;  the  second,  need- 
less. Let  the  individuals  who  now  hold  it  still  retain,  if  they 
want  to,  possession  of  what  they  are  pleased  to  call  their  land. 
Let  them  continue  to  call  it  their  land.  Let  them  buy  and  sell, 
and  bequeath  and  devise  it.  We  may  safely  leave  them  the  shell, 


9 


if  we  take  the  kernel.  It  is  not  necessary  to  confiscate  land;  it 
is  only  necessary  to  confiscate  rent.  We  already  take 

some  rent  in  taxation.  We  have  only  to  make  some  changes 
in  our  modes  of  taxation  to  take  it  all.    *  * 

"  In  this  way  the  State  may  become  the  universal  landlwd 
without  calling  herself  so,  and  without  assuming  a  single  new 
function.  In  form,  the  ownership  of  land  would  remain  just  as 
now.  No  owner  of  land  need  be  dispossessed,  and  no  restric- 
tion need  be  placed  upon  the  amount  of  land  an}r  one  could 
hold.  For,  rent  being  taken  by  the  State  in  taxes,  land,  no 
matter  in  whose  name  it  stood,  or  in  what  parcels  it  was  held, 
would  be  really  common  property,  and  every  member  of  the 
community  would  participate  in  the  advantages  of  its  owner- 
ship. " — Progress  and  Poverty,  pp.  361,  5. 

In  other  words,  the  change  from  private  to  virtual  public 
ownership,  is  to  be  effected  by  means  of  the  Single  Tax. 
Let  us  not  lose  sight  of  this  fact.  The  grand  function  of  the 
Single  Tax,  whatever  else  its  advocates  may  expect  from  its 
adoption,  is  to  practically  abolish  private  ownership  in  land  and 
throw  the  management  of  the  soil  into  the  hands  of  the  State. 

Once  more,  Mr.  George: — 

"Now  inasmuch  as  the  taxation  of  rent,  or  land  values,  must 
necessarily  be  increased  just  as  we  abolish  other  taxes",  we  may 
put  the  proposition  into  practical  form  by  proposing — 

To  abolish  all  taxation  save  that  upon  land  values" — lb.  365. 

This  is  the  Single  Tax.  This  brings  us  back  to  the  point 
from  which  we  started  :  The  Single  Tax  rests  upon  the  denial 
of  the  right  of  private  property  in  land. 

III. — The  Argument  Against  Private  Ownership. 

The  Single  Tax  is  the  method  by  which  the  change  in  land- 
lords is  to  be  made  ;  but  why  make  the  change  ?  What  are 
the  reasons?  Why  may  not  land  be  property  in  the  same 
sense  that  a  house  is  property  \ 

1.    It  is  condemned  on  the  ground  of  Natural  Rights. 

Let  us  again  be  sure  we  are  correct. 

"To  affirm  the  rightfulness  of  property  in  land,  is  to  affirm 
a  claim  which  has  no  warrant  in  nature,  as  against  a  claim 


10 


founSed  in  the  organization  of  man  and  the  laws  of  the  material 
universe." — Progress  and  Poverty,  p.  302. 

4 4  Whatever  may  be  said  for  the  institution  of  private  prop- 
erty in  land,  it  is  therefore  plain  that  it  cannot  be  defended  on 
the  score  of  justice. 

4  <  The  equal  right  of  all  men  to  the  use  of  land  is  as  clear  as 
their  equal  right  to  breathe  the  air — it  is  a  right  proclaimed  by 
the  fact  of  their  existence.  For  we  cannot  suppose  that  some 
men  have  a  right  to  be  in  this  world  and  others  no  right." — lb. 
p.  303. 

i 6  Vice  and  misery,  poverty  and  pauperism,  are  not  the  le- 
gitimate results  of  increase  of  population  and  industrial  develop- 
ment ;  they  only  follow  increase  of  population  and  industrial 
development  because  land  is  treated  as  private  property — they 
are  the  direct  and  necessary  results  of  the  violation  of  the  su- 
preme law  of  justice,  involved  in  giving  to  some  men  the  ex- 
clusive possession  of  that  which  nature  provides  for  all  men. 

"  The  recognition  of  individual  proprietorship  of  land  is  the 
denial  of  the  natural  rights  of  other  individuals — it  is  a  wrong 
which  must  show  itself  in  the  inequitable  division  of  wealth." 
Ib.  p.  306. 

(1)  What  are  natural  rights  and  how  are  they  to  be  deter- 
mined ? 

The  advocates  of  the  Single  Tax  are  fond  of  quoting  in  reply 
the  Declaration  of  Independence,  ' '  life,  liberty  and  the  pursuit 
of  happiness."  They  add  that  the  use  of  land  is  essential  to 
these  and  hence  must  be  also  a  natural  right. 

They  might  go  farther  and  say  that  man  has  also  a  right  to 
food,  clothing  and  shelter,  for  without  these  life  cannot  be 
maintained.  If  the  pursuit  of  happiness  be  a  natural  right,  he 
has  also  a  natural  right  to  those  things  which  he  believes  will 
promote  his  happiness, — horses  and  carriages,  pianos  and  opera 
tickets.  Why  not?  If  land  is  essential  to  life  and  liberty,  these 
may  be  essential  to  happiness.  The  socialists  say  he  has  such 
right.  They  are  perfectly  consistent.  If  the  Single  Tax  ad- 
vocates push  their  logic  a  little  further,  they  will  find  them- 
selves landing  in  socialism.  We  are  informed,  upon  the  au- 
thority of  Mr.  Rae,  that  in  England  many  who  began  with  the 


11 


denial  of  the  right  of  private  property  in  land,  have  ended  by 
becoming  out  and  out  socialists. 

This  is  another  of  the  inevitable  tendencies  of  the  Single  Tax. 

But  how  are  one's  natural  rights  to  be  determined  ?  If  I  am 
born  with  a  right  to  the  soil,  is  it  to  any  particular  spot  of  that 
soil  ?  No  ;  for  this  would  be  to  absorb  the  use  of  it  selfishly  to 
myself, — this  would  be  private  property,  which  above  all  things 
is  to  be  abhorred  with  a  righteous  and  benevolent  abhorrence. 
I  am  simply  bom  with  a  right  to  the  soil  in  general.  My  nat- 
ural right  is  a  very  indistinct  and  vapory  one.  Just  as  soon  as 
I  try  to  give  it  a  "  local  habitation  and  a  name,"  it  becomes  a 
personal  and  private  right  to  a  particular  thing,  a  particular 
place,  and  the  sword  of  the  Single  Tax  is  lifted  against  it.  It  is 
like  turning  a  herd  of  cattle  into  a  pasture,  and  saying,  ' <  You 
all  have  natural  rights  to  this  grass,  but  no  one  of  you  must 
eat  any  particular  mouthful,  for  in  so  doing,  you  would  tres- 
pass upon  the  natural  rights  of  all  the  rest. " 

The  difficulty  of  all  this  is  felt  so  keenly  that  the  advocates  of 
the  Single  Tax  are  wont  to  put  in  a  qualifying  phrase,  "  it  is  a 
right  which  rests  in  every  human  being  as  he  enters  the  world, 
and  which  during  his  continuance  in  the  world,  can  be  limited 
only  by  the  equal  rights  of  others. " 

That  qualifying  phrase  so  modifies  the  natural  rights  of  man 
that  they  become  metamorphosed  into  civil  rights. 

Those  limitations  must  be  decided  by  civil  society,  by  the 
state,  which  holds  the  right  of  eminent  domain  in  land  and  in  all 
other  things.  The  state  may  decide,  for  certain  reasons,  that 
all  a  man's  property  may  be  forfeited.  It  may  decide  that  he 
no  longer  has  right  even  to  life, — to  say  nothing  of  liberty  and 
the  pursuit  of  happiness.  The  state  may  decide  that  a  man's 
natural  right  to  the  soil  is  best  defined  and  limited,  and  secures 
least  interference  with  the  rights  of  others  by  awarding  him 
private  ownership  in  some  particular  piece  of  land.  The  ques- 
tion whether  a  man  has  a  right  in  this  or  that  direction,  a  right 
to  this  thing  or  that,  is  a  question  whether  it  is  best  for  society 
as  a  whole  that  he  should  exercise  this  right.    An  alleged  nat- 


12 


ural  right  is  easily  shown  to  be  no  right  at  all  if  it  appears  that 
the  exercise  of  it  would  infringe  the  general  good  ! 

(2)  But  let  us  follow  this  doctrine  of  natural  rights  a  little 
farther. 

If  an  individual  has  no  right  to  appropriate  a  lot,  what  right 
has  a  nation  to  appropriate  a  territory  ? 

By  what  right  does  any  particular  nation  occupy  any  partic- 
ular spot  upon  this  planet?  If  a  man  has  not  a  right  to  say, 
This  plot  of  ground  is  mine  as  against  all  comers, — by  what 
authority  does  any  body  of  people  say,  This  domain  is  mine  as 
against  all  other  bodies  of  people  in  the  world  ? 

Mr.  George,  in  his  Social  Problems,  has  a  chapter  with  the 
odorous  title,  u Dumping  Garbage."  It  is  on  the  subject  of 
Irish  immigration.  He  deplores  such  immigration.  But  by 
what  process  can  he  deny  to  what  he  calls  ' '  this  Irish  human 
garbage"  (p.  127)  the  right  to  a  place  for  dumping?  Have 
they  not  all  equal  and  inalienable  rights  to  the  soil  with  all  the 
rest  of  us  ?  If  they  were  denied  that  right  upon  the  Emerald 
isle,  shall  we  pursue  the  same  selfish  policy  that  drove  them 
forth  ?  I  believe  that  laboring  men  in  general,  and  those  who 
claim  to  represent  their  interests,  are  in  favor  of  excluding  the 
Chinese  and  other  cheap  laborers  from  abroad.  So  am  I  in 
favor  of  it — at  least  for  the  next  quarter  of  a  century.  But 
how  can  we  do  it  upon  this  theory  ?  The  Chinaman  may  say : 
"  I  was  born  with  a  natural  right  to  the  soil  in  general ;  by 
what  authority  do  you  confine  me  within  the  walls  of  the  celes- 
tial empire  ?  "  And  you  cannot  answer  till  you  step  from  the 
platform  of  natural  to  the  platform  of  civil  rights. 

(3)  One  or  two  questions  more  : — 

If  the  state  has  no  right  to  grant  private  titles  in  land,  what 
right  has  the  state  to  collect  the  rental  of  lands  ?  The  right  to 
receive  involves  the  right  to  give. 

Another  question  :  If  every  man  has  a  natural  and  inalien- 
able right  to  the  soil,  why  tax  him  for  the  use  of  that  to  which 
he  has  a  natural  and  inalienable  right  ? 

The  whole  matter  reduces  to  a  question  of  policy  and  ex- 
pediency.   The  state  must  do  what  it  deems  best  upon  the 


13 


whole  for  all  its  citizens.  All  our  fine  talk  vanishes.  The  doc- 
trine of  natural  rights  is  one  of  the  vaguest  doctrines  that  ever 
flapped  its  shadowy  wings  in  the  atmosphere  of  human  thought  ! 

2.  Closely  allied  to  the  argument  of  natural  rights  is  an- 
other that,  indeed,  is  but  the  obverse  side.    Land  is  a 

BOON  OF  NATURE  ; 

land,  with  all  its  resources,  is  the  gift  of  God  to  all  His  chil- 
dren. No  man,  or  set  of  men,  may  take  for  private  use,  the 
universal  dowry. 

"  God  made  the  land, "  says  Mr.  George  ;  44  it  is  his  bounty  to 
the  human  race.  Where  does  any  man  or  set  of  men  get  the 
right  to  parcel  out  and  sell  this  heritage  of  our  Heavenly  Fa- 
ther to  all  his  children  alike  ?  " 

We  may  quite  fully  agree  with  Mr.  George  in  his  devout 
ackowledgement  of  God  as  the  Creator  of  the  world  ;  but  it  is 
a  premise  from  which  his  conclusion,  by  no  means,  follows.  It 
does  not  transpire  that  because  God  made  the  land  none  of  his 
children  have  a  right  to  any  particular  part  of  it.  Indeed,  the 
very  opposite  of  all  this  would  seem  to  be  the  presumption.  It 
would  coincide  more  nearly  with  what  we  can  conjecture  of  his 
plans  that  this  land  should  be  held  in  severalty  and  not  in  com- 
mon. If  his  purpose  is  at  all  revealed  by  the  course  of  his- 
tory, the  race  has  progressed  from  the  gregarious  to  the  indi- 
vidual holding. 

(1)  But  land  is  not  the  only  thing  that  is  the  gift. of  God. 
The  cattle  on  a  thousand  hills,  the  sheep  that  pasture  in  the 
valleys,  the  horses  that  draw  the  plow  or  the  carriage, — these 
are  the  gifts  of  God  as  much  as  the  land.  They  have  not  been 
produced  by  human  labor.  Upon  what  grounds  may  the 
farmer  own  an  ox,  the  shepherd  a  sheep,  the  drayman  the  horse 
that  draws  his  wagon  ?  The  gold  in  the  mines,  the  iron  in  the 
hills,  the  coal  deposits  in  the  fields,  the  forests, — these  are  all 
the  gifts  of  God.  Indeed,  we  might  extend  the  proposition  and 
say  that  everything  in  this  world  is  the  gift  of  God. 

Mr.  George  includes  ' 1  natural  resources  "  in  his  definition  of 
land,  and  thus  drives  his  argument  farther  and  farther  in  the 

ii ... . 


14 

direction  of  socialism  pure  and  simple.  What  right  has  any 
one  to  take  for  himself  an  article  made  from  these  resources, — 
from  any  of  nature's  raw  material  ? 

What  right,  for  example,  has  Mr.  George  to  the  pen  which 
he  used  as  an  illustration  ? 

"The  pen  with  which  I  am  writing,"  he  says,  "is  justly 
mine.  No  other  human  being  can  rightfully  lay  claim  to  it, 
for  in  me  is  the  title  of  the  original  producers  who  made  it." 

Mr.  George  has  very  much  to  say  about  the  manner  in  which 
land  was  originally  appropriated,  about  the  robbers  who  laid 
violent  hands  upon  it ;  he  dashes  them  hither  and  thither  upon 
the  waves  of  his  impassioned  rhetoric.  Surely  he  will  not  toler- 
ate robbery  anywhere.  We  feel  that  all  the  gifts  of  God  are 
secure  ;  for  Mr.  George  stands  in  the  attitude  of  a  policeman  at 
the  door  of  Nature's  treasure-house  to  see  that  no  private  thief 
breaks  through  to  steal.  Nature's  treasures  under  this  guar- 
dianship are  secure  as  if  they  were  laid  up  in  heaven  ! 

But  now  a  question.  How  did  the  original  producers  of  Mr. 
George's  pen  obtain  the  raw  materials,  the  gifts  of  God,  out  of 
which  they  made  the  pen  to  which  they  gave  him  the  title  ? 
Was  it  not  by  appropriating  to  themselves  a  part  £ '  of  God's 
bounty  to  the  human  race  ?  "  How  did  the  original  producers 
of  the  chair  in  which  Mr.  George  was  sitting  when  he  wrote, 
obtain  the  raw  materials,  the  wood,  out  of  which  they  made  it  ? 
Was  it  not  by  parcelling  out  to  themselves  a  portion  of  "the 
heritage  of  our  Heavenly  Father  to  all  his  children  ?  "  If  Mr. 
George  owns  a  house,  who  authorized  the  original  producers  to 
take  clay  from  this  "common  heritage?"  His  argument 
proves  so  much  that  it  proves  nothing  to  his  purpose.  The 
socialist  is  the  only  one  who  can  consistently  use  it.  The  Single 
Tax  man  who  employs  it  is  galloping  along  the  road  to  that 
self- same  goal  !  ,  . 

(2)  If  we  are  told  that  a  man  can  only  have  property  in  that 
which  he  has  produced  by  his  own  labor,  then  I  affirm  that  there 
is  a  very  important  sense  in  which  man  is  the  creator  of  the 
land. 

Some  of  the  richest  land  in  England  lies  in  what  is  called  the 


15 


"fen  country."  It  was  not  many  generations  ago  covered  by 
the  sea.  That  land  is  to-day  as  much  the  product  of  skill  and 
labor,  as  was  the  palace  of  the  Caesars  or  the  modern  railroad. 

The  Duke  of  Argyll  says  that  in  Scotland,  since  the  close  of 
the  civil  wars  in  1745,  thousands  of  acres  have  been  reclaimed 
from  bog  and  waste. 

"Some  of  the  best  land  in  Belgium,"  says  Mr.  Rae,  "was 
barren  sand-heaps  a  hundred  years  ago,  and  has  been  made  what 
it  is  only  by  the  continuous  and  untiring  efforts  of  small  pro- 
prietors. In  these  cases  the  labor  and  the  results  of  the  labor 
are  obvious,  but  no  cultivated  land  exists  anywhere  that  is  not 
the  product  of  much  labor. " 

The  case  of  Holland  is  so  marked  that  it  has  given  rise  to  the 
proverb,  "God  made  the  world,  but  the  Dutch  made  Holland." 

It  is  the  application  of  capital  and  labor  everywhere  that  has 
turned  the  wilderness  into  a  fruitful  field  and  made  the  desert 
blossom  as  the  rose. 

The  truth  of  the  matter  is  Nature  has  no  boon  to  give.  Every- 
thing that  we  obtain  from  Nature  is  the  result  of  toil  and  strug- 
gle. Nature  has  nothing  for  man  but  what  he  obtains  by  the 
sweat  of  his  brow.  This  boon  was  given  to  man  by  the  same 
sense,  and  in  no  other,  in  which  it  was  given  to  the  wild  beasts. 
They  had,  indeed,  the  priority  of  possession.  Man  displaced 
them  ;  but  it  has  been  truly  said,  that  '  j  the  nearer  we  get 
back  to  the  pure  boon,  the  more  we  find  man  like  other  ani- 
mals in  his  mode  of  existence,  his  grade  of  comfort,  his  standard 
of  happiness,  his  subjection  to  Nature."  *  *  "Whatever 
we  have,  therefore,  that  is  worth  having  is  not  a  boon  of  Na- 
ture, but  a  conquest  of  civilization  from  Nature." 

Nor  is  this  true  alone  of  land  in  general  ;  it  is  true,  in  large 
measure,  of  the  land  in  towns  and  cities.  In  the  center  of  the 
city  of  Lynn,  once  stood  a  rough,  wild,  stony,  almost  inacces- 
ible  tract  of  land,  known  as  High  Rock.  In  an  earlier  day  it 
was  only  noted  as  the  cottage  of  Moll  Pitcher,  the  witch  and  for- 
tune teller,  stood  at  its  base.  At  length  this  high  and  barren 
tract  of  land  was  purchased  by  James  N.  Buffum,  the  eminent 
Quaker  philanthropist.    He  smoothed  the  raf  ged  and  jagged 


16 


surface,  and  covered  it  with  cheerful  soil.  He  made  avenues 
of  approach,  and  laid  out  beautiful  streets,  and  shortly  ap- 
peared in  the  market  green  house -lots  in  that  transformed 
locality. 

It  is  related  of  this  same  Mr.  Buffum  that  towards  the  close 
of  his  life,  a  man  of  very  dismal  religion  went  to  him  and  said, 
< '  Friend  Buffum,  suppose  after  all  your  work  you  should  at 
last  be  sent  to  hell,  what  would  you  do  ?  "  u  Just  what  I  have 
done  in  Lynn  ;  go  to  work  to  improve  the  place. " 

In  our  own  city,  how  have  vast  areas  been  made  fit  to  receive 
human  habitations  and  places  of  business  ?  By  money  and  skill 
and  toil  in  leveling  hills  and  filling  up  swamps.  If  these  tracts 
had  been  left  in  their  original  state,  as  the  "boon  of  nature" 
or  the  '  'gift  of  God, "  how  much  less  would  they  be  worth  than 
they  are  to-day  !    Man  has  in  large  measure  created  them. 

(3)  We  are  told  that  we  must  distinguish  between  the  bare 
land  and  the  improvements.  But  where  the  improvements  have 
gone  into  the  land  itself  wad  constitute  a  part  of  its  value,  how 
are  we  to  so  make  the  distinction  that  we  can  tax  the  land  as 
nature  left  it  and  exempt  the  land  as  man  has  made  it  f  How 
shall  we  separate  the  primitive  grant  from  the  human  contribu- 
tion ?  This  must  be  done,  if  we  are  to  carry  out  the  single  tax 
program. 

But  this  problem  does  not  trouble  Mr.  George.  He  jauntily 
cuts  the  Gordian  knot. 

Listen  to  his  words  :  "  But  it  will  be  said,  There  are  im- 
provements which  in  time  become  indistinguishable  from  the 
land  itself.  Very  well ;  then  the  title  to  the  improvements  be- 
comes blended  with  the  title  to  the  land  ;  the  individual  right  is 
lost  in  the  common  right.  It  is  the  greater  that  swallows  up 
the  less,  not  the  less  that  swallows  up  the  greater.  Nature 
does  not  proceed  from  man,  but  man  from  nature,  and  it  is  to 
the  bosom  of  nature  that  he  and  all  his  "works  must  return 
again. " 

This  is  the  way  in  which  the  novelist  so  often  disposes  of  a 
troublesome  character,  or  relieves  the  akwardness  of  an  unfor- 
tunate  situation — by  death.    There  are  more  senses  than  one 


17 


in  which  the  phrase  of  Burns  may  be  used,  "  0  death,  the  poor 
man's  dearest  friend ! "  In  this  trying  predicament,  it  is  cer- 
tainly the  best  friend  of  Mr.  George.  We  need  not  give  our- 
selves any  uneasiness  about  these  improvements  ;  the  earth 
swallows  up  everything ;  and  we  are  not  going  to  live  long  our- 
selves ! 

When  Hamlet  returns  from  the  ghost,  his  friends  anxiously 
inquire : 

Horatio — What  news,  my  lord  ? 

Hamlet — O  wonderful ! 

Hor. — Good  my  lord,  tell  it. 

Ham.  — Would  heart  of  man  once  think  it  ? 

There's  never  a  villian  living  in  all  Denmark, 

But  he's  an  arrant  knave  ! 
Hor. — There  needs  no  ghost,  my  lord,  come  from  the  grave 
to  tell  us  this  ! 

When  we  ask  Mr.  George  how  we  are  to  distinguish  between 
the  land  as  nature  gave  it  and  the  improvements  man  has  made, 
and  he  tells  us  in  answer,  ' '  We  must  all  die  !  "  we  may  para- 
phrase Horatio,  and  say,  It  needs  no  Single  Tax  philosopher, 
my  lord,  come  all  the  way  from  San  Francisco,  to  tell  us  this  ! 

The  appeal  to  nature's  boon  cannot  settle  this  question  of 
the  right  to  own  land.  It  is  a  question  of  policy  and  expedi- 
ency that  must  be  adjusted  on  the  ground  of  human  experi- 
ence ;  on  the  basis  of  what  society  finds  best. 

3.  The  right  of  private  property  in  land  is  denied  upon  a 
third  count,  that  of  the 

UNEARNED  INCREMENT. 

It  is  claimed  that  the  value,  of  land  depends  upon  population, 
and  that  the  increase  in  land  values  due  to  this  cause,  properly 
belongs  to  the  community.  Every  person  in  the  community, 
by  the  very  fact  of  his  presence,  adds  to  the  value  of  the  land 
upon  which  the  town  or  city  stands  and  all  the  land  in  the  vi- 
cinity, and  is  entitled  to  his  share  of  the  values  thus  created  or 
enhanced.  The  only  way  in  which  he  can  receive  the  benefit  is 
for  the  community  to  appropriate  that  value  in  taxation,  and 
devote  it  to  the  common  good,  by  paying  with  it  the  expenses 
of  government. 


18 


(1)  Let  us  examine  this  assertion  that  all  land  values  are 
created  by  the  community.  The  trouble  with  the  advocates  of 
this  theory  is  that  their  assertions  are  all  too  sweeping,  and 
while  there  is  a  grain  of  truth  in  many  of  those  assertions,  it  is 
only  to  be  found  after  threshing  through  the  bushel  of  chaff 
that  contains  it. 

It  is  not  true  to  say  that  all  land  values  are  due  to  the 
presence  of  a  population.  Land  is  sometimes  valuable  for  the 
deposits  of  ore  it  contains,  or  for  the  forests  that  grow  upon  it. 
It  may  be  hundreds  of  miles  from  human  habitation.  Just  as 
soon  as  some  enterprising  or  adventurous  spirit  discovers  its  re- 
sources, he  knows  that  it  is  worth  more  than  he  can  compute, 
and  like  the  man  in  the  parable  who  found  the  treasure  in  the 
field,  he  goes  and  sells  all  that  he  has  and  buys  that  field. 

Other  land  as  we  have  already  seen,  is  very  largely  the  cre- 
ation of  man.  It  is  not  due  to  the  vicinity  of  a  great  popula- 
tion ;  but  to  the  expenditure  of  time  and  energy  and  capital. 

The  value  of  still  other  land  is  due  to  the  skill  with  which  it 
is  cultivated.  It  is  due  to  the  brains  and  labor  of  one  man  and 
not  to  the  presence  of  ten  thousand.  Two  tracts  of  equal  fer- 
tility to  begin  with,  will  have  a  selling  value  in  the  course  of  a 
few  years  widely  different  according  to  the  ability  and  industry 
of  the  two  men  who  own  them.  They  may  stand  near  the 
same  city,  but  their  value  depends  not  upon  fifty  thousand  men, 
but  upon  two  men  ! 

These  deductions  must  be  made  from  the  assertion  that  land 
values  depend  upon  the  community.  And  upon  the  other  hand, 
even  where  the  assertion  holds  good,  we  must  not  get  the  idea 
that  all  members  of  the  community  help  to  give  land  its  value. 

Take  one  hundred  men  out  of  this  community  to-day,  and 
leave  their  places  vacant.  Let  them  take  their  capital  and  re- 
move the  industries  they  operate  to  another  place  and  then  fig- 
ure up  your  land  values.  Take  out  the  men  who  own  the  mills 
and  factories  and  railroads,  and  then  compute  your  unearned 
increment.  The  fact  is  that  the  enterprise  and  sagacity  and 
business  ability  of  a  few  men  make  a  community  grow  before 
they  realize  anything  from  the  growth  they  have  created.  They 


19 


have  made  the  community,  and  the  community  is  first  of  all 
indebted  to  them.  Take  them  away,  and  what  proportion  of 
our  165,000  inhabitants  would  be  left  at  the  end  of  a  year? 

There  are  others  who  contribute,  and  who  contribute  much, 
to  the  upbuilding  of  the  community  in  the  work  of  their  hands. 
Others  who  do  nothing.  Still  others  who  do  worse  than  noth- 
ing. There  are  elements  in  every  city  that  are  a  menace  and 
not  a  benefit.  Paupers,  and  those  who  are  wilfully  idle  and 
vicious,  depress  the  value  of  everything,  and  enhance  the  value 
of  nothing.  It  is  not,  therefore,  accurate  to  say  that  land 
values  are  created  by  the  whole  community — that  all  have  an 
equal  right,  or  any  right  whatever  to  the  unearned  increment. 

(2)    But  what  is  the  unearned  increment  itself? 

It  is  simply  the  result  of  a  successful  investment.  It  has 
been  attended  with  its  risks  as  any  other  investment  would  be. 
One  man  puts  his  money  into  stocks,  another  into  land.  What 
is  the  difference  ?  Why  not  confiscate  the  dividends  by  taxa- 
tion %    Why  take  the  rise  in  land  values  alone  'i 

Is  it  not  true  that  other  forms  of  investment  are  dependent 
upon  the  growth  of  community  ?  A  railroad  charter,  a  street 
car  or  electric  light  franchise,  these  have  only  such  value  as  in- 
vestments, as  the  community  gives  them.  But  is  it  not  true 
that  any  business  may  grow  from  the  same  causes  ?  The  busi- 
ness of  a  merchant,  of  a  newspaper,  of  a  hotel,  of  a  professional 
man  even, — may  increase  with  the  multiplication  of  population  ; 
why  should  not  their  earnings  go  into  the  public  treasury  with 
the  returns  from  the  land-holder's  investment  ? 

The  Single  Tax  would  not  fall  upon  personal  property.  Sup- 
pose twenty  years  ago,  I  invested  a  few  hundred  dollars  in  a 
painting.  The  artist  rises  to  prominence  and  dies.  His  pictures 
are  eagerly  sought.  I  find  myself  at  length  in  possession  of  a 
work  of  art  worth  $10,000.  What  have  I  done  to  increase  the 
value  of  that  painting  ?  Nothing.  At  the  same  time  I  bought 
the  picture,  a  friend  of  mine,  let  us  say,  invested  the  same 
amount  in  a  small  Western  town.  The  town  has  become  a  city. 
His  lot  is  worth  to-day  as  much  as  my  picture.  What  has  he 
done  ?    Nothing,  you  say.    And  you  want  to  take  the  reward 


20 


of  his  investment  and  let  mine  go  free  !  Upon  what  principle 
of  equity  can  this  be  justified  ?  Mr.  George  says  I  am  entitled 
to  the  increment  on  account  of  my  taste  and  sagacity  in  buying 
the  picture.  But  how  could  I  foresee  its  rise  to  fame  ?  And  if 
I  did,  is  it  not  true  that  human  sagacity  often  foresees  the  course 
of  events,  discerns  where  population  is  likely  to  center,  and  in- 
vests accordingly  ?  And  if  this  is  the  case,  is  not  that  same 
sagacity  entitled  to  its  reward  ? 

(3)    Assumptions  in  the  unearned  increment  argument. 

It  is  assumed  by  the  Single  Tax  advocates  that  those  who 
deal  in  land  are  the  worst  sort  of  monopolists  and  accumulate 
the  largest  fortunes.  But  in  a  country  where  there  are  fifteen 
millions  of  land-owners,  it  seems  idle  to  talk  of  monopoly.  In 
a  city  where  a  large  proportion  of  the  inhabitants  own  their 
homes,  it  is  folly.  It  seems  almost  superfluous,  too,  to  call  at- 
tention to  the  fact  that  the  majority  of  great  fortunes  made  in 
this  country  have  not  been  accumulated  by  speculating  in  land. 
They  have  been  derived  from  mines  and  railroads  and  banks  and 
manufactures,  and  other  forms  of  business.  Where  one  fortune 
has  been  made  in  land,  many  more  have  been  made  in  some 
other  way  ! 

It  is  assumed  that  landlords  and  land-owners  do  nothing  for 
the  community.  They  pocket  all  the  benefits  and  make  no  re- 
turn. If  they  rent  their  land,  they  appropriate  the  rent  for 
themselves.  If  they  allow  it  to  lie  idle,  it  simply  increases  in 
value,  and  thev  will  take  all  the  increase.  But  is  it  true  that 
they  are  the  bloated  and  selfish  mortals  Mr.  George  pursues 
with  such  vehemence  of  rhetoric,  such  verbal  swords  of  Nem- 
esis, through  half  a  dozen  volumes  ?  We  must  not  forget  that 
they  do  pay  taxes,  and  taxes  upon  this  very  land.  One  almost 
feels  when  reading  single  tax  literature,  that  this  diabolical 
land-owner  is  the  one  person  of  all  others  in  the  community  who 
pays  absolutely  nothing  to  the  government,  who  is  swinish 
enough  to  bilk  the  government  out  of  all  his  debts  for  benefits 
received.  But  he  pays  such  taxes  as  the  common  consent  of 
the  community  deems  fair  and  reasonable  upon  all  his  land 
whether  improved  or  idle.    He  may  not  pay  all  that  the  single 


21 


tax  men  think  he  ought ;  but  this  is  a  calamity  which  we  must 
bear  with  Christian  resignation  for  the  present.  In  the  millen- 
nium which  Mr.  George  promises  when  his  ideas  are  adopted, 
they  will  have  to  make  up  the  deficit. 

I  suppose,  too,  that  land-owners  spend  the  revenues  they  de- 
rive from  rent  very  much  as  other  people  spend  their  money  ; 
that  a  large  part  of  it  goes  to  others  in  the  community  who  have 
a  living  to  make,  and  who  make  it  by  selling  dry  goods,  gro- 
ceries, clothing,  furniture,  and  the  like.  And  if  anything  is 
left,  the  land-owner  either  puts  it  into  the  bank  where  it  will 
help  some  one  in  the  community  to  cany  on  his  business,  or 
invests  it  in  business  himself.  When  he  finally  sells  out  and 
gets  his  unearned  increment,  it  will  most  likely  go  into  some 
enterprise  in  whose  benefits  the  whole  community  will  share. 
And  in  the  meantime,  while  we  are  waiting  for  the  single  tax, 
we  may  get  almost  its  equivalent  from  him  in  other  forms  of 
taxation.    Let  us  not  despair, — even  of  the  land-owner  ! 

(4)  One  thing  more  in  this  connection.  We  have  always 
^been  taught  that  "it's  a  poor  rule  that  won't  work  both  ways." 
The  single  tax  men  are  all  agreed  that  if  a  man  puts  money 
into  land,  and  the  value  of  that  land  rises,  the  increased,  value 
belongs  of  right  to  the  community,  and  ought  to  be  taken  in 
taxation.  Very  good.  Now  suppose  he  puts  money  into  land, 
and  the  value  falls,  as  it  often  does.  I  doubt  very  much 
whether  a  man  in  this  city  to-day  could  get  for  lots  what  he 
paid  for  them  two  years  ago.  If  he  can  hold  them,  he  will 
come  out  all  right.  If  the  business  interests  of  the  state  and 
city  survive  the  present  legislature,  we  may  all  continue  to  ex- 
ist. But  suppose  a  man  cannot  hold  on.  Suppose  he  is  obliged 
to  sell,  and  that  at  a  great  sacrifice ;  will  the  Single  Tax  men 
say  that  the  community  ought  to  make  good  his  loss  ?  If  not, 
why  not  \  Periods  of  depression  may  come  even  under  the 
Single  Tax  regime.  If  the  community  may  take  the  increase, 
why  should  it  not  indemnify  in  case  of  decrease  ?  If  it  does 
not,  the  land-owner  will  be  in  a  condition  that  neither  men  nor 
gods  would  envy.  When  the  colored  clergyman  told  his  hear- 
ers that  there  were  just  two  .roads  through  this  world,  the  one 


22 


a  broad  and  a  narrow  way  that  led  to  destruction,  and  the  other 
a  narrow  and  a  broad  way  that  led  to  perdition,  one  of  his  hear- 
ers exclaimed,  4 4  If  dat  am  de  case,  this  cullord  individual 
takes  to  the  woods  !  "  Between  the  44  unearned  increment  "  and 
the  "unrequited  decrement, "  the  land-owner  will  have  to  4  4  take 
to  the  woods." 

IV. — I  have  now  examined,  as  thoroughly  as  my  time  would 
permit  the  argument  of  the  Single  Tax  advocates  against  private 
ownership  in  land.  If  I  may  trespass  a  little  farther,  I  want 
to  say  a  few  words  directly  in  favor  of 

PRIVATE  OWNERSHIP. 

1.  It  is  a  principle  that  reformers  too  often  lose  sight  of, 
that  £  4  Society  can  only  be  helped  forward  in  the  immediate 
line  of  its  own  historic  growth." 

4 4  In  the  earliest  stages  of  civilization,"  says  Mr.  George, 
44  we  see  that  land  is  everywhere  regarded  as  common  prop- 
erty." 

Certainly.    But  in  the  progress  of  civilization  that  common^ 
ownership  has  been  outgrown  and  left  behind  as  a  system  of  no 
farther  use  to  the  race. 

It  is  because  the  world  has  advanced,  that  we  do  not  want  to 
retrace  our  steps.  44  No  man  having  put  his  hand  to  the  plough 
and  looking  back,  is  fit  for  the  kingdom  of  God." 

Mr.  George  expresses  fears  that  our  present  industrial  sys- 
tem may  be  overthrown  in  a  revolution.  But  does  he  know  of 
a  revolution  that  has  gone  backward  ?  One  system,  indeed, 
after  another  has  been  deposed  ;  but  has  there  ever  been  a  case 
in  which  the  system  of  individual  ownership  in  land  was  ever 
destroyed  that  the  nation  might  go  back  to  the  days  of  common 
ownership  i 

Even  revolutions  go  forward  ! 

One  of  the  best  examples  of  state  ownership  that  remains  in 
the  world  to-day  is  that  of  India.  The  Duke  of  Argyll  in  his 
review  of  Mr.  George's  book  says:  44  India  is  a  country  in 
which,  theoretically  at  least,  the  state  is  the  only  and  universal 
land-owner,  and  over  a  large  part  of  it, the  state  does  actually 


23 


take  to  itself  a  share  of  the  gross  produce  which  fully  repre- 
sents ordinary  rent.  Yet  this  is  the  very  country  in  which  the 
poverty  of  the  masses  is  so  abject  that  millions  only  live  from 
hand  to  mouth,  and  when  there  is  any — even  a  partial  failure 
of  the  crops,  thousands  and  hundreds  of  thousands  are  in  dan- 
ger of  actual  starvation.  The  Indian  government  is  not  cor- 
rupt, whatever  other  failings  it  may  have,  and  the  rents  of  a 
vast  territory  can  be  far  more  safe  if  left  to  its  disposal  than 
they  could  be  left  at  the  disposal  of  such  popular  governments 
as  Mr.  George  has  denounced  on  the  American  Continent.  Yet 
somehow  the  functions  and  duties  which  in  more  civilized  coun- 
tries are  discharged  by  the  institution  of  private  ownership  in 
land  are  not  as  adequately  discharged  by  the  Indian  Admin- 
istration. Moreover  I  could  not  fail  to  observe,  when  I  was 
connected  with  the  government  of  India,  that  the  portion  of 
that  country  which  has  most  grown  in  wealth  is  precisely  that 
part  of  it  in  which  the  government  has  parted  with  its  power  of 
absorbing  rent  by  having  agreed  to  a  permanent  settlement. " — 
Property  in  Zand,  pp  37,  38. 

2.  This  line  of  historic  growth  has  not  been  determined  ar- 
bitrarily. There  are  reasons  in  human  nature  and  in  the  nature 
of  civil  society. 

Governments  have  encouraged  private  ownership.  Mr. 
George  constantly  speaks  of  the  land  as  having  been  stolen. 
Dr.  Abbot  in  a  late  number  of  the  Forum  joined  in  this  wretch- 
edly false  and  mischievous  accusation. 

"  With  wonderfully  few  exceptions,"  says  General  Walker, 
4  c  those  who  own  the  land  among  us,  have  come  into  possession 
of  it,  not  only  peacefully  and  lawfully,  but  with  the  invitation 
and  encouragement  of  the  government,  upon  the  well-settled 
and  unanimously  approved  policy  of  the  people.  Challenge 
this  statement  who  can  !  Take  the  whole  region  west  of  the 
Alleghanies  !  It  was  once  substantially  all  of  it,  the  property  of 
the  government.  In  this  state  of  things  the  people,  all  parties 
and  all  sections  concurring,  adopted  the  principle  that  this  vast 
<lomain  should,  as  early  as  possible,  become  individual  prop- 
erty.   Finding  that  the  original  terms  of  sale  did  not  allow  a 


sufficiently  rapid  alienation  of  the  soil,  they  reduced  those 
terms.  Finally,  by  general  consent  the  policy  was  adopted  of 
giving  away  land,  in  moderate  amounts,  to  actual  settlers  ;  in 
order  that  each  farm  might  have  an  owner,  and  that  the  United 
States  might  have  a  numerous  body  of  citizens  bound  to  the  soil 
by  ties  of  affection  and  interest." 

The  reasons  for  encouraging  private  ownership  do  not  lie  far 
away,  but  I  must  rehearse  them  very  briefly  : 

(1)  It  secures  the  best  use  of  the  soil. 

Mr.  George,  indeed,  denies  this,  and  says  that  it  is  not  own- 
ership, but  undisturbed*  possession,  and  that  possession  he  would 
give  to  a  man  and  his  descendants,  just  so  long  as  the  rent  was 
paid  to  the  state.  But  if  a  government  may  violate  a  title,, 
there  is  no  reason  to  believe  that  it  would  respect  a  lpase. 

(2)  It  makes  better  citizens. 

For  one  to  feel  that  he  owns  the  ground  under  his  feet,  as 
well  as  the  roof  over  his  head,  gives  him  a  sense  of  dignity. 

His  value  as  a  citizen  and  voter  is  increased.  The  man  who 
owns  his  own  home — in  the  commonly  accepted  sense  of  that 
word — must  take  a  deeper  interest  in  the  administration  of  pub- 
lic affairs,  than  the  man  who  does  not  own  his  home,  and  has  no 
property  of  this  description  at  stake. 

The  man  who  thus  has  something  to  gain  or  lose  will  always 
be  upon  the  side  of  public  order. 

It  is  said  that  when  the  labor  riots  of  1877  endangered  life 
and  property  in  many  of  the  smaller  industrial  centers  of  Penn- 
sylvania, there  was  no  appreciable  disorder  in  the  city  of  Phila- 
delphia ;  and  this  was  attributed  at  the  time  to  the  fact  that  so 
large  a  proportion  of  the  people  of  that  city  owned  their  homes 
— their  houses  and  the  lots  upon  which  they  stand. 

(3)  It  is  the  open  door  by  which  multitudes  pass  from  the 
ranks  of  poverty  into  the  realm  of  comfort. 

"The  method  by  which  millions  of  persons,"  says  Prof.  J. 
B.  Clarke,  "  have  found  their  way  into  the  favored  circle,  has 
been  by  taking  possession  of  land  that  is  either  freely  given  to 
them  by  the  state,  or  sold  by  private  owners  on  terms  that  place 
the  payments  wholly  in  the  future.    So  far  from  excluding 


25 


laborers  from  the  property-holding  class,  our  land  system  has 
been  the  open  door  by  which  they  have  entered  it.  Though  the 
reduction  of  public  domain  may  narrow  the  entrance,  it  is  broad 
enough  still  to  admit  a  multitude." 

I  believe  that  private  ownership  of  land,  as  well  as  of  other 
property,  is  the  very  foundation  of  this  nation's  prosperity  and 
glory.  I  do  not  mean  to  say  that  there  are  no  evils  connected 
with  it — great  evils,  perhaps  ;  but  what  good  thing  is  there  in 
this  world  without  its  attendant  evils  ?  What  field  without  its 
weeds  ?    What  summer  without  its  tempests  ? 

It  is  not  safe  or  wise  to  meddle  with  the  institution  of  private 
property  in  land.  The  promise  of  something  better  is  a  delu- 
sion. Goldsmith  tells  us  of  a  miller  who  dreamed  three  nights 
in  succession  that  a  huge  pan  of  gold  and  diamonds  was  con- 
cealed under  a  large  stone  beneath  his  mill.  He  at  length 
digged  down  until  he  came  to  the  stone  seen  in  his  dreams.  It 
was  too  large  to  lift  alone,  so  he  ran  for  his  wife  to  assist  him. 
But  when  he  returned,  instead  of  his  fancied  treasure,  there 
was  his  mill,  his  only  support,  undermined  and  fallen.  Dream- 
ing of  something  better  than  that  upon  which  oar  civilization 
rests,  many  are  to-day  assailing  the  foundation.  The  Single 
Tax  is  the  pick  and  spade  ! 


ADDITIONAL  NOTES. 

I  wish  to  say  that  the  discussion  which  followed  the  address 
was  conducted  in  the  most  friendly  and  pleasant  manner.  It 
was  lively  and  spirited,  but  no  ill-feelings  were  expressed.  I 
trust  that  the  practice  of  meeting  face  to  face  to  discuss  their 
differences  will  more  and  more  prevail  among  men. 

It  was  strenuously  contended  in  the  general  debate  that  I  did 
not  understand  Mr.  George's  position  on  private  property  in 
land  ;  that  he  did  not  want  to  make  any  change  in  the  present 
system  of  ownership.  I  have  quoted  liberally  from  his  works 
in  order  to  make  this  very  point  clear.  I  feel  reasonably  cer- 
tain that  I  understand  Mr.  George.    His  language  seems  very 


26 


far  removed  from  ambiguity.  I  add  one  or  two  quotations  to 
those  I  gave  in  the  address. 

"The  anti-slavery  movement  in  the  United  States  commenced 
with  talk  of  compensating  owners,  but  when  four  millions  of 
slaves  were  emancipated,  the  owners  got  no  compensation,  nor 
did  they  clamor  for  any.  And  by  the  time  the  people  of  any 
such  country  as  England  or  the  United  States  are  sufficiently 
aroused  to  the  injustice  and  disadvantages  of  individual  ownership 
of  land  to  induce  them  to  attempt  its  nationalization  they  will 
be  sufficiently  aroused  to  nationalize  it  in  a  much  more  direct 
and  easy  way  than  by  purchase.  They  will  not  trouble  them- 
selves about  compensating  the  proprietors  of  land. ' ' — Progress 
and  Poverty,  p.  326. 

"But  a  question  of  method  remains.  How  shall  we  do  it  ? 
We  should  satisfy  the-  law  of  justice,  we  should  meet  all  eco- 
nomic requirements,  by  at  one  stroke  abolishing  all  private  ti- 
tles, declaring  all  land  public  property,  and  letting  it  out  to  the 
highest  bidders  in  lots  to  suit,  under  such  conditions  as  would 
sacredly  guard  the  private  right  to  improvements." — Progress 
and  Poverty,  p.  361. 

u  If  we  apply  to  this  case  of  The  People  vs.  The  Land-own- 
ers the  same  maxims  of  justice  that  have  been  formulated  by 
land-owners  into  law,  and  are  applied  every  day  in  English  and 
American  courts  to  disputes  between  man  and  man,  we  shall  not 
only  not  think  of  giving  the  land -holders  any  compensation  for 
the  land,  but  shall  take  all  the  improvements  and  whatever  else 
they  may  have  as  well. 

But  I  do  not  propose,  and  I  do  not  suppose  that  any  one  else 
will  propose  to  go  so  far.  It  is  sufficient  if  the  people  resume 
the  ownership  of  the  land.  Let  the  land-owners  retain  their 
improvements  and  personal  property  in  secure  possession."— 
— Progress  and  Poverty,  p.  329. 

"As  the  tax  upon  land  values  irrespective  of  improvements 
was  increased,  more  and  more  of  the  rent  which  now  goes  to 
favored  individuals  would  be  taken  for  public  benefit,  until  ul- 
timately, if  we  could  attain  to  ideal  perfection,  the  selling  val- 
ues of  even  the  most  valuable  land  would  entirely  disappear,  and 
taxation  would  become  rental  paid  the  State. 

In  this  simple  way,  without  increasing  governmental  machin- 
ery, but,  on  the  contrary,  greatly  simplifying  it,  we  could  make 
land  common  property." — Social  Problems,  p.  223. 


27 


It  is  needless  to  add  to  this  long  list  of  quotations.  It  will 
not  do  to  compare  them  to  isolated  Scripture  texts.  They  con- 
tain the  very  gist  of  Mr.  George's  philosophy.  So  long  as 
these  passages  stand  in  his  books  and  bear  the  relation  they  do 
to  his  scheme,  it  is  idle  for  any  one  to  deny  (1)  that  Mr.  George 
wishes  to  abolish  private  ownership  in  land,  and  (2)  that  he  pro- 
poses the  Single  Tax  as  the  means  of  reaching  that  end. 

If  words  in  these  passages  mean  what  the  same  words  do 
when  found  elsewhere,  then  I  contend  that  I  understand  Mr. 
George.    If  the  Single  Tax  men  have  not  found  these  passages, 
and  many  others  like  them,  I  commend  the  works  of  Mr.  Henry 
George  to  their  serious  attention. 

One  other  point:  Rev.  S.  W.  Sample  thought  I  had  made  an 
absurd  mistake  in  charging  that  Mr.  George's  theory  looked  in 
the  direction  both  of  anarchy  and  socialism — two  things  that 
he  asserted  were  as  wide  apart  as  possible,  anarchy  meaning 
without  government,  socialism  everything  government. 

Any  one  who  reads  the  address  will  easily  see  that  1  meant 
that  Mr.  George's  assertion,  "when  a  title  rests  but  on  force, 
no  complaint  can  be  made  when  force  annuls  it,"  would  go  far 
to  justify  such  particular  manifestations  of  anarchy  as  occurred 
in  Chicago. 

But,  as  I  showed,  in  my  final  speech  before  the  league,  some 
of  the  principles  of  anarchy  and  socialism  are,  after  all,  not  so 
far  apart,  as  Mr.  Sample  supposes.  I  quoted  Prince  Krapot- 
kin,  and  I  here  subjoin  the  quotation  in  full. 

'  <  In  common  with  all  Socialists,  the  Anarchists  hold  that  the 
private  ownership  of  land,  capital,  and  machinery  has  had  its 
time ;  that  it  is  condemned  to  disappear  ;  and  that  all  requi- 
sites for  production  must,  and  will,  become  the  common  prop- 
erty of  society,  and  be  managed  in  common  by  the  producers  of 
wealth." 

The  above  is  from  his  article  on  the  Scientific  Basis  of  An- 
archy published  a  few  years  ago  in  the  Nineteenth  Century. 
Prince  Krapotkin  being  a  believer  in  the  principles  of  anarchy 
and  a  recognized  authority  on  the  subject,  may  be  supposed  to 
understand  the  relations  of  his  system. 


28 


I  add  the  testimony  of  Prof.  Andrews,  who  fills  the  chair  of 
Political  Economy  in  Cornell  university  : 

"The  strictly  economic  tenets  of  the  two  parties  [i.  e.  an- 
archists and  socialists]  are  identical.  Both  restrict  the  legiti- 
mate range  of  private  property  to  that  wealth  which,  like  food, 
clothing,  houses,  books,  and  similar  personal  belongings,  has  no 
other  destination  but  to  be  consumed,  making  it  the  business  of 
society  in  general  to  administer  both  the  great  instrumentalities 
of  production,  land  and  capital. " 

When  one  is  compelled  to  choose  between  such  authorities 
and  the  baseless  assertions  of  Mr.  Sample,  his  position  is — to 
say  the  least — extremely  cruel. 

It  is  due  to  all  such  thoughtful  Anarchists  as  Prince  Krapot- 
kin,  to  say  that  they  discountenance  all  violence. 

The  difference  between  anarchists  and  socialists  is  thus 
stated  by  Prof.  Andrews,  and  explains  in  a  word  what  the  an- 
archists mean  by  "  no  government : ' ' 

"  Socialists  exalt  the  State's  economic  function,  yet  insist  on 
both  the  utility  and  the  necessity  of  its  purely  political  attribu- 
tions. Anarchists  would  make  its  office  economic  only.  In 
other  words  they  would,  strictly,  have  no  State  at  all,  but  only 
a  lot  of  administrative  machinery  somewhat  resembling  the 
State.  Not  exactly,  to  be  sure,  for  anarchism  also  rejects  the 
idea  of  nationality,  and  proposes  the  commune  as  the  largest  ad- 
missible social  integer.  There  is  no  longer  to  be  a  France,  a 
Germany,  an  England.  Instead,  each  land  is  to  be  dotted  over 
with  village,  town,  and  city  co-operative  groups,  mutually  help- 
ful but  mutually  independent,  owning  no  common  superior,  and 
ignoring  all  national  lines." 

Maeiox  D.  Shutter. 

Minneapolis,  March  31,  1891. 


